Re: [Freesurfer] No cluster remains significant after multiple comparisons

2016-10-14 Thread Douglas Greve


It may be the case that the result are not significant. If you have an 
apriori region then you can analyze only in that region rather than 
doing a whole-brain analysis. That will make the result more significant.



On 10/9/16 4:08 PM, Karamfil Bahchevanov wrote:

Hello Freesurfer experts,

I'm really struggling with my study.
I have a 27 scans that I analyze in QDEC. Scans are from Siemens 
machine, mprage protocol, TR1620, TE 4.3, FOV 240*256, acq. matrix 
232*256, slice thickness 0,9mm.
After I enter model and have some initial significant clusters 
(threshold 2 - 5) I run multiple comparisons, and none have survived 
the procedures, no matter method or significance -  FDR 
(0.1-0.05-0.01) or Monte-Carlo(0.05-0.01-0.01). This repeats no matter 
of the tested variables and the initial significancy and size of the 
clusters.
I'm really confused of that and could not find an explanation, except 
that my study is really non-significant. However, the significant 
results I get are in the regions that I expect to be, that are 
reported previously and they also explain my results. If they happen 
to survive, but that never is the case (In fact one survived, but I 
entered wrong variables and model was wrong).
What could be the reason? Outliers? Really non-significant results 
(which I doubt as I said already)? Should I recheck the quality of the 
processed scans?  I also made my own average, hoping to improve things 
somehow, but QDEC doesn't allow me to run multiple comparisons with it.
Anyway, is it mistake to discuss the results when they don't survive 
simulation, as they fit with initial hipothesis and what I'm testing. 
I have to point that there are only few significant clusters, that 
could not be explained with what I'm testing and tested population, so 
in fact the "noise" is very small.

Any help will be of great value,

Thanks



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.


[Freesurfer] No cluster remains significant after multiple comparisons

2016-10-09 Thread Karamfil Bahchevanov
Hello Freesurfer experts,

I'm really struggling with my study.
I have a 27 scans that I analyze in QDEC. Scans are from Siemens machine,
mprage protocol, TR1620, TE 4.3, FOV 240*256, acq. matrix 232*256, slice
thickness 0,9mm.
After I enter model and have some initial significant clusters (threshold 2
- 5) I run multiple comparisons, and none have survived the procedures, no
matter method or significance -  FDR (0.1-0.05-0.01) or
Monte-Carlo(0.05-0.01-0.01). This repeats no matter of the tested variables
and the initial significancy and size of the clusters.
I'm really confused of that and could not find an explanation, except that
my study is really non-significant. However, the significant results I get
are in the regions that I expect to be, that are reported previously and
they also explain my results. If they happen to survive, but that never is
the case (In fact one survived, but I entered wrong variables and model was
wrong).
What could be the reason? Outliers? Really non-significant results (which I
doubt as I said already)? Should I recheck the quality of the processed
scans?  I also made my own average, hoping to improve things somehow, but
QDEC doesn't allow me to run multiple comparisons with it.
Anyway, is it mistake to discuss the results when they don't survive
simulation, as they fit with initial hipothesis and what I'm testing. I
have to point that there are only few significant clusters, that could not
be explained with what I'm testing and tested population, so in fact the
"noise" is very small.
Any help will be of great value,

Thanks
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.